http://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/demilio_captialismgayid.pdf
Our class discussion on American consumerism, particularly the frivolous lifestyle it creates, led me to another, related question. I acknowledge that there are systems of consumerism that surround us, adding burden to our lives that does necessarily equate to real value and personal meaning; however, I believe that DeGraff hinges his argument in “Affluenza” hinges on many assumptions of the stereotypical nuclear family. John D’Emilio’s “Capitalism and Gay Identity” argues that America’s system of capitalism allowed individuals to develop lifestyles outside of the traditional concept of the family; he continues to argue that some of these people were now able to pursue what we call the modern gay identity. Ignoring complications of sexual orientation arguments, D’Emilio presents an idea that consumerism allowed for a diversification of the way people live their lives. I believe that our system of American consumerism and our capitalist identity do have powerful, potential negative effects on our society, but I also believe that many new ways of living are now possible that were not years ago. As DÉmilio suggests, “. . . that the relationship between capitalism and the family is fundamentally contradictory. On the one hand, capitalism continually weakens the material foundation of family life, making it possible for individuals to live outside the family, and for a lesbian and gay male identity to develop.””(pg. 110)
How people decide to spend their money is first dependent on their financial responsibilities, and then the rest of their income can be used as they please based on their perceived wants. We explored the ways people chose to spend the money they have, and sometimes the money they don’t, in “Affluenza”. However, what if a consumer does not have the financial responsibilities of a family? What if his or her income is more than suitable and leaves them with a lot of free time to pursue personal goals? With this concept in mind, consumerism and capitalism are the tools people use to find fulfillment, rather than forces that drive unhappiness and meaningless purchase. D’Emilio argues that consumerism and wage labor allowed people to make money for some of their time, so they could live the rest of their time as they pleased. This concept would be incredible foreign to Americans before the rule of capitalism and wage labor; at that time the family was run as a small business. Women had to prepare food, men had to complete some sort of task, and children had school and then family chores. When people could step out of this picture and start using their individual wages for individual goals, worlds of opportunity were created to explore different ways to live life entirely.
I challenge the class on my stance of whether they feel that although consumption may drive family units apart, it has opened my possibilities for individual expression as demonstrated by the gay community.
Matthew Gomez
Monday Section
I think the biggest problem with that topic is the fact that no matter how progressive we've become (we HAVE made leaps and bounds since the inception of the nuclear family) we still regard the family as a basic default. It really is the media that portrays this stereotype rather fiercely, we have almost no screentime for anything except versions of the norm. Therefore the images that we grow up with and that are shown as the norm become the norm and are then forced into the next generation. It's a sad cycle, but one I don't see ending any time soon. At least we do have small pockets where things are changing, I'm beginning to see challenges to the norm, a gay family here, and odd family layouts there. But it's not enough.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we should be chasing our dreams instead of cloistering ourselves into a rut is a lofty ideal, but some people dream of that nuclear family from a young age as a life goal.
A majority of people are blind to the mainstream media, whether it be news or entertainment. We have to realize and accept that all of our favorite primetime shows on major networks reflect their interests. They know what they are doing, influencing us with certain depictions of family. Shows such as “Modern Family” depict a gay couple, yet the portrayal is not realistic. The show does not address day to day issues gay couples face: discrimination, etc.
ReplyDeleteYes, we like TV because it is an escape from our lives and the real world, but entertainment is not JUST entertainment anymore. It’s subliminally teaching us “family values” to live by. And who’s values? The major companies and corporations who put money and ads into the production. Even shows on Disney are teaching kids at a young age to value looks and commodities over personal strengths and what really matters.
I have to agree with Alexa. While American's generally have become more progressive, the family unit is still a difficult concept to define. With that being said, I think major companies continute to promote the standard family unit we have built (Mother, Father, Children) and gear all of their advertisements towards this family and it's members as stereotypical figures. In turn, I do believe that this creates stress for all players in the family. Not only are these companies telling us what we should buy, but also how we should act and how these products will make us the ideal member of the family unit and in society as well.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with thinking of the nuclear family as default. I think the reason many of us are trying to pursue the lifestyle that Matthew mentions people have income that is "more than suitable and leaves them with a lot of free time to pursue personal goals."
ReplyDeleteAnd also, do individuals in the queer community face discrimination every day? I think the purpose of Modern Family is to expand on the nuclear family and the common family show by adding a bit of modernity.
Melissa Tampan section 01
As much as we tend to bash the media and marketing industries for blinding us with the life that best suits their self interests, I had not yet thought about how those same powerful industries have also made it possible for individuals like those in the gay community to have more freedom of expression. I can practically hear somewhere in the distance, a group of ultra-conservatives using this fact to back their case that alternative lifestyles are destroying the American family. But the truth is that there is no more room in this culture to see everything as right and wrong. You can no longer say that one family system is better then the other because there are train-wreck traditional nuclear families, and there are families that are redefining that previous ideal, and doing a better job in a lot of ways. Maybe Modern Family fails to represent a gay couple perfectly, but at least the media is bringing a positive subculture of families to the spot light.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting point to acknowledge that consumption has opened larger doors for others groups of people. I find it hard to accept that consumption is the prime driver for the fall of the "nuclear" family. There are many contingencies that can be affixed to that problem. In our society things have become so grey that its in the media that we see these clear cut black and white lines anymore. Real life poses many problems for any style family, look at divorce rates. Look at how hard it is more gay couples to adopt children, to even getting their marriages to be legitimate. More lies between the lines then we often suggest. As Alexa stated many people are so geared for the "white pickett fence" suburban life that they can't handle its problems when they finally get it in a world that is constantly changing. Consumption may indeed break families apart but its just not the typical heterosexual family that feels it.
ReplyDelete